164 Tests tvith Prccipithis 



results. These bloods appeared to give about as much reaction as human 

 blood to anti-human serum. Griinbaum (18, i. 1902, p. 143) also 

 obtained this result with anti-human serum tested upon these bloods 

 and that of the Gorilla. I shall refer to his results again further on. 

 In my paper of 20, l. 1902, I remarked that the amount of reaction 

 would appear to correspond with the degree of relationship amongst the 

 Anthropoidea, the Lemurs, as already noted, having given negative 

 results. Uhlenhuth seems to have tested a monkey blood of some kind 

 lately, for he says (11 — 18, IX. 1902, pp. 661) that the weak reaction 

 occurring in monkey blood upon the addition of anti-human serum 

 cannot be confounded with the marked reaction occurring in human 

 blood dilutions. In the remarks which follow the table below we see that 

 even monkey blood may give a high degree of reaction under certain 

 conditions. Schiitze (6, xi. 1902, p. 805) was able to obtain precipita- 

 tion with anti-human serum in solutions of human spermatozoa made 

 from stains which had been dried 6 months. 



Confirming what has gone before, Whittier (18, i. 1902) obtained 

 negative results in testing anti-human serum on four bloods : of horse, 

 cow, rabbit, guinea-pig. Butza (18, iv. 1902) tested anti-human serum 

 upon 14 bloods (man, dog, cat, pig, ox, sheep, rabbit, guinea-pig, fowl, 

 pigeon, turkey, duck, goose, and a fish) with negative result except the 

 first. Biondi (1902) found anti-human serum to precipitate the bloods 

 of Cercopithecus Jlavus viridis and Macacus radiatus. Anti-human serum 

 precipitated human milk but not that of the cow, goat and donkey; 

 human saliva, but not that of the dog, cat, horse and donkey. Human 

 bloods in health and disease gave similar reactions. 



Biondi found furthermore that human serum injected into a monkey 

 did not lead to the formation of precipitins, as might be expected 

 theoretically in consequence of the close relationship between man and 

 monkey. 



Lastly we find that Ewing (in. 1903) tested four specimens of 

 monkey blood (baboon, rhesus, and two Java monkeys, sjaecies not 

 stated) with anti-human sera obtained from rabbits and a fowl. He 

 considers it possible to distinguish these bloods from human blood by 

 means of higher dilutions of the test sera\ He omits to mention that 

 the same thing can be accomj)lished by using higher dilutions of the 

 bloods tested, as others have found. It must always be remembered that 

 the precipitin should be present in excess. 



* See page 142. 



